Need a cheap good zoom for wedding

[t_santim]

<p>Hey all I'm wondering if you would be willing to recommend a cheap AF older nikon or third party zoom lens for d300. I have a few weddings to shoot and need to pick up one. Needs to be wide to normal or longer. Thanks.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Define Cheap.<br>

Define Good.<br>

The two never mix. The least I would recommend is a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You will also need a back up lens. And a fast prime, something like the new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 would be nice. You can get the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for less but I like the slightly wider shots (not that 35mm on a DX frame is wide) for wedding work. </p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>if ur outside sometimes a cheap 70-300 F4-5.6 zoomed out with you standing far away produces nice bokeh. so that's good for candid shots in the summer sun. but totally useless indoors, then i would go with the above mention of the cheap 50mm 1.8</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>Tamron 17-50 f / 2.8 is cheap or 18-70 nikon lens </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Wide angle - Tamron 18-50 is good and cheap<br>

Tele - Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is good and about half of the price of the nikon</p>

[aaron l]

<p>Cheap and weddings usually don't mix. If you're looking for cheap, any of the kit lenses will fit the bill. The 18-70, 18-105 will work. You'd be better off finding a 2.8 zoom - most venues are very dark.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>IF you are going to do weddings cheap lenses do not mix will buy nikon 17-55 2.8 you will be happy you did </p>

[papa_john]

<p>Zooms are convenient, good ones are not cheap. Define good and cheap!</p>

[bms]

<p>Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D is about $350 used. Not fast like AF-S but good image quality. Not sure how to cover the wide and tele end 'cheap" (Tamron 17-50, Nikkor 80-200 AF-D?)</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>tamron 17-50mm or sigma 18-50mm. many will caution you but i have used the 18-70mm for weddings on a D200 and D90, with and without flash. the extra 20mm on the long end helps a lot also.</p>

<p>you will need a long tele. again, i have used the 55-200mm VR kit lens for weddings. they are great especially for outdoor receptions. but i wouldn't try it without flash indoors, even with VR on.</p>

<p>plus, practice, practice, practice.</p>

[cwphoto]

<p>I would investigate the 24-85 2.8-3.5 Nikon. Either version.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Can you recommend a cheap, good saw. I'm planning to build a few houses and need to pick one up. I already have a hammer.</p>

<p>Have I left anything out ;-)</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>Any one of the 3rd party 1x-50 f/2.8 zoom lenses would be a cost effective solution for you. They are quite cheap compare to lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8 nikkors. And they are pretty much wide enough for PJ style shooting on your D300 (DX), while they're almost long enough for portraits (50mm x 1.5 = 75mm equivalent).</p>

<p>The old school 35-70 f/2.8 is a good lens, but it's really not wide enough for weddings. On DX, that lens is essentially a normal to short tele zoom. It provides not even a bit of wide angle coverage (which would be much needed in your situation) on a DX body like your D300. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>How many people will want to hire you for a wedding if they google your name and find out that you tried to buy the cheapest zoom you could for your camera.</p>

<p>Overstatement, but you owe it to clients to get a good zoom, not a cheap one. I see a LOT of wedding photogs come through at the church I work at, and the ones who use cheap gear do cheap work... Sorry, but it's true.</p>

<p>Get the right gear, do good work... get paid...</p>

[tholte]

<p>If you are only going to do a few weddings, rent a good zoom or two.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Benjamin,</p>

<p>The 35-70 f/2.8D use to be a bargain; no more. Right now the lens in BARGIN condition on KEH sells for $399; in EXCELLENT condition it goes for $569 - that is without hood.</p>

<p>I purchased mine used a few years ago; I use it on a F100 film camera. It is a great lens. On a D300 it would be approximately a 50mm to 105mm equivalent.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I also recommend the Nikon AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D Macro (there is only one, the other is f/3.5-4.5 G). I think it's a very good lens, about $550-600 US. Here are samples:</p>

<p>http://www.kohanmike.com/samples_24_85.htm</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Angle of view range (focal length) preference is very personal, but I seriously doubt that a 35-70mm zoom is good for wedding photography even on FX, as 35mm is not all that wide. On DX (since the OP is using a D300), at least to me, it doesn't make any sense.</p>

<p>When I shot weddings with a DX body, my favorite zoom is the 17-55mm/f2.8 plus the 70-200mm/f2.8. If you want a main zoom to cover weddings for DX, at least as far as I am concerned, something that starts from 16, 17, or 18mm on the wide end is a must. If you want to save money, buy a 3rd-parth lens instead of Nikon.</p>

<p>Once again, it boils down to whether you are getting paid to shoot somebody's once-in-a-lifetime events. If you only shoot this a couple of times, renting is certainly an option.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>sorry peter, your statement is not always true. there are some wedding photographers who carry D700s and D3s with 17-55mm and 70-200mm VR and they don't know how to use them. i see some of them at our church where i volunteer, and where i also shoot some weddings, anniversaries and quincieneras..........................but it's always best to have the right equipment.</p>

<p>kevin, maybe you can help edward choose the nails :-)</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>When I was married, I appointed a friend to take the photos. It was the worst mistake I made. After 30 years I wish I had engaged a professional photographer, as all I have now is a paper envelope with some machine-developed, grainy, colour prints that are turning yellow. Most of my other friends have these beautiful portrait quality, framed prints adorning their mantle pieces and walls. Its a continual reminder of my mistake.<br>

Do your friend a favour and be man enough to give him the number of a local, professional photographer. If he can't afford it, get your mates to kick in as a wedding present. It's his (and hers) big day.</p>

[patrick tom]

<p> Sorry to tell you but you're doomed. If you haven't done enough reading and research of wedding photography to realize no one and I mean "not one" wedding photographer would ever refer to their zoom lens as being cheap even though it maybe relatively speaking. The other thing: you haven't already been shooting with a zoom that would cover your "wedding" zoom ranges. Good luck</p>

[dpbours]

<p>I'd settle for a <strong>Nikkor AF 24-85 f/2.8 - 4 D.</strong><br>

Nicely compact and also useful as macro lense if yo start shooting the rings, the flowers, the invitation, menu, etc etc. And also a great lense if you go full frame in the future! I use it on my D700 as cheap all round lense.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/237-nikkor-af-24-85mm-f28-4-d-if-review--test-report</p>

 

[daverhaas]

<p>To all those who are saying don't buy cheap or don't ask about cheap...</p>

<p>Not everyone has an unlimited budget or credit cards that allow them to charge a $750-$2,000 lens. Sometimes people just getting started in the business need something that can get them through until they have enough capital built up to buy the expensive gear.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50 (i mistyped 18-50 earlier) is an excellent alternative to the nearly triple price Nikon. The Sigma - 70-200 HSM is 1/2 the price of the Nikon. Granted it doesn't have VR, but if you use a tripod or a monopod, it doesn't really matter. I'd shoot a wedding any day with two lenses and my D200 or D300.</p>

<p>I've seen "pros" with D3's walk around like zombies without a clue and produce poor results...I've seen amateurs with P/S take photos that are breathtaking. </p>

<p>Equipment does help to a point...but you still have to know how to use it and when to use it.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>sorry - haven't my caffeine yet...</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While I agree with most that you need good tools for this job, I also should add that the US wedding photography business seems a bit different from the European one as I've seen it on several weddings. For example, the amount of "formals" that are deemed normal, but also the expectation that people seem to have. A lot of people I know just wanted decent pictures to show how the day was. So while I understand the point of view from the pro, please also do consider that not everybody is after the package you offer, and that cultural differences may play a role. So nobody is doomed, and not all is lost.</p>

<p>So I've shot a couple of weddings for friends, unpaid, with my own gear which includes no f/2.8 17-xx zoom. And I did so with the firm warning to the couple upfront that I am not a pro by any means. Set the right expectations. <br>

Things worked out fine, I think; the results were certainly not professional but not too shabby either. A lot of places (in the Netherlands at least) do allow flash because they know the wedding will be recorded, and so light is suddenly much less of an issue. No heavy f/2.8 zoom needed, the humble nice 18-70 (3.5-4.5) held up very nicely. For the places I wanted to use ambient light only, I switched to primes (and only when I was sure I'd have the time to do so). The 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.8 both showed to be very useful.</p>

<p>In fact, a good portrait lens to me seems more important; it is an excellent moment for good portraits since people are happy. And that's one area where you do not want a f/5.6 zoom, but rather f/2.8 or faster. I'd recommend the 85 f/1.8, if money is tight the 50 f/1.8.</p>

<p>Much more important iss: have nearly everything double. 2 bodies, extra batteries for the bodies. Flashguns, with spare batteries. A lof of memory cards. All batteries charged, all cards formatted, ready to go. If you have one body, borrow or rent a second one, and for all critical focal lenghts (24-35-(50 maybe)-85 on DX if you ask me), make sure you can cover those with 2 lenses so that one of them can break down without further impact on your possibilities.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Cheap, good and weddings don't go together.<br>

Find another job.</p>